I wish this were the case, but western companies are constantly supplying both software and hardware to repressive regimes. Hell, weapons!
Though the fact that we believe that western tech companies can't make those promises means that there's at least public support for making this a reality
I think this misses the point. Countries like US or Israel are perfectly capable [0][1][2] of offering such systems. And they do because it gives them another solid "string" attached to the regime receiving it. Their problem is that now the string (and all the knowledge, power, influence that come with it) could go to China. Hence the campaign to discredit them simply by suggesting this behavior is limited to them. Putting the facts in perspective would undermine this.
[0] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-israel...
[1] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/report-saudi-arabia...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-us-sur...
China on the other hand has almost 8 million people for every country on Earth. Imagine how many people they could assign to messing with each country around the world if they wanted to.
These are totally different players.
It’s fair that US wants to contain China’s leverage in Africa and maintain its own, but this is a national security priority for US , not “everyone”.
Unless we don't have a majority that is https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vetoes-congres...
Since it's been going on for a long time, you either cannot, or you don't want to.
Democracy is a messy and flawed process, but it is the best we have. The fact still remains that no matter how much you bemoan the current state of affairs that there is a framework for changing things.
At this stage for us Africans the Chinese seems like a more dependable and friendlier lot.
Just wait and see, the loans you are getting ( not investments) are for Chinese workers. The loans are at 4-6% if the work isn't executed by Chinese workers.
That's not an ally
The US has no concept for Africa, because unlike China which uses infrastructure projects and investment as a way to offload its export surplus the US is an overwhelmingly domestic economy.
There will never be an American 'Belt and Road' because it just doesn't make much sense for a country that has so little international economic exposure, whenever the US forms alliances it is towards purely political ends. In that sense one could indeed characterise the relationship with China as more stable. No Chinese leader is suddenly going to go isolationist over the next two decades just because they feel like it.
It's not because of a domestic economy. It's because a freight/boat is much more economical than a train and a train doesn't make any sense.
It's only here ( now ), because it's heavy subsidized by China and an excuse for modern colonialism.
PS. A lot of ( sane / healthy) infrastructure works are happening in Africa with Europe / US though. But if it's not feasible, it ain't going to happen. That's where the Chinese come in to burry them in debt.
I question how stable the relationship is when that stability rests on the assumption China fails to meet its economic goals.
And also quite importantly as China climbs up the value chain it will increasingly seek to outsource to cheaper countries, as it has already started doing in Pakistan, one of the major hubs of the Belt and Road initiative. And given the quite authoritarian system, it will probably do so quite effectively without facing the political backlash that workers in the United States have caused.
It's only funds, not resources.
Give me some trustworthy resources that say the IMF is both.
The Western world has been giving back colonies from a dark past.
That's a higher standard.
Fyi, the entire world has dark pasts, some more successful than others.
This is not excusing China's attitude, and it's by no means (much) better. You wouldn't call someone who keeps slapping you over the face a friend just because they could have punched you.
No they won their independence from wars, most of the colonies that where "given back" won their independence through fighting in world war 1 and 2, there are very few exceptions to this rule.
But, Congo seems to fail to be independant and corruption seems to have gotten way worse.
I don't have sources I would quote, but I have enough to be told to look over there and see the cause and effect.
Developing countries are saddled with debt, and further crippled. Recipients of the debt are contractors. Austerity measures are needed to repay the debt, and the citizens are the ones burdened by it to help extract the country's natural resources to pay the debt.
Even IF an indictment of the World Bank is just crackpot conspiracies, it is a really good instruction manual. China's approach is running the same playbook but may even be more completely benign. Their industries have been entering emerging markets that others have decided not to effectively touch, without invading. Are they also running the regime change playbook too like the US did all last century? Time will tell. They are doing a lot for African markets. They don't need to be an "ally", everyone should be skeptical. Lightyears ahead of what the west is doing though.
PS. No sources to quote, that's a bummer. Everyone thinks to see all causes and effects. I do not agree with this one.
The West has been mostly fair in the digital age, while China doesn't. That's the cause and effect i see.
Brainwashing is what WSJ does since Murdoch took control over it and what mainstream Western media were doing to motivate the last deadly invasion on Iraq [1,2]. Just look at the reality. The US military killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, while the US public elected and supported its leaders who started this war by brainwashing the global population to believe their lies (and now the story repeats itself with Trump [3]).
Who was/is brainwashed?
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/20/18274228/a...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-fail...
[3] https://theintercept.com/2019/08/14/trump-iran-worst-lies/
No, the difference is hypocrisy, and of course tons of daily propaganda from the Western media / Corporations / Governments / intelligence agencies.
Governments with resource wealth don't need large public services that would operate a sophisticated intelligence service, so they outsource it. So far these governments have been doing point targeting against dissidents w/ mercenary surveillance companies, but it's possible these companies are about to be steamrolled by one that implements their products as a free feature of their entire infrastructure.
The bargain will be, we'll support your campaign/coup and modernize your infrastructure for your people, while giving you intel we collect on your dissidents and opposition. Then, once Huawei infrastructure is ensconced, no government will get into power who does not have support from China. A very "harmonious," cycle. Want be be elected again? Secure our rights to extract rare earth minerals. Etc.
The company is a projection of Chinese state power, not unlike western telcoms with 5EYES and the ITU has been. The difference is the Party lacks the sentimentality of western countries when it comes to issues of total surveillance and intervention to maintain control. (Albeit, we have never been above supporting butchers either, so YMMV.)
My prediction is that once the Huawei gear is in place, a country's political class will turn to face east on policy and resource questions. It's pure leverage. Western tech companies can't make the same promises to those governments either. It's not like Google can promise to prop up the next Idi Amin, but Huawei doesn't have that constraint. So far, the world has been content to deal with the devil it knows.
Anyway, I'd say this article is an anecdote of a larger geopolitical shift. Containing Huawei should be a national security priority for everyone, but tbh, it's looking more and more like our respective mere leviathans have become oversized, slow moving prey for their hydra.